Page 204 - Showsight April 2013

Evolution of thE StaffordShirE
Bull tErriEr BrEEd Standard
By Jason Nicolai
T he Staffordshire Bull
Terrier was accepted by
the AKC for registra-
tion in 1974 with show
status granted the fol-
lowing year. However,
the breed standard was not rooted the
US disco era. In the UK, there existed
40 years of evolution to the standard
prior to AKC acceptance. It is important
to consider this history not only to have
a better understanding of today’s stan-
dard, but ultimately to provide impor-
tant context that will assist in our inter-
pretation of the modern breed and our
evaluation thereof.
The first standard was written in the
UK in 1935. It began by describing the
ideal Stafford as 15" to 18" tall. Dogs
were to weigh 28-38 pounds with bitches
24-34 pounds. Compare this to our cur-
rent standard which brings the heights
down to 14"-16", yet leaves the weights
exactly the same. This is by far the most
significant change to the breed standard
throughout its evolution in terms of how
it impacts our interpretation of the bal-
ance between bull and terrier as well as
the subjective descriptors found through-
out the rest of the standard. These early
show dogs came directly from fighting
stock, hence the wider variation in size
and rather efficient proportions com-
pared to our modern show dogs. At the
same time the language under “General
Appearance” in today’s standard was
taken directly from the original in 1935:
“…great strength for his (its) size, and
although muscular should be active and
agile.” The interpretation of “active and
agile” went from a mid-standard dog
who carried approximately 2 pounds of
weight per inch of height to one that now
carries nearly 2.4 pounds per inch—a
20% increase in overall mass. It’s impor-
tant to note that this evolution is very
often misquoted and misunderstood.
You may hear some incorrectly state that
the current heights and weights that
define proper substance were derived by
the fighting fancy, so allowances should
be made for our modern show dogs to
carry more mass or to be conditioned
to a weight considerably more than the
breed standard call for. As a result you
may see exhibits that are shown with an
overall substance or a simple lack of con-
ditioning resulting a weight that is well
above today’s standard for their height.
In reality, the modern standard
already takes into consideration the
breed’s transformation from a fighting
dog to a show dog. The argument that
it’s acceptable for our modern show
dogs to carry more mass than the cur-
rent standard calls for is an unfounded
and unfortunate misinterpretation of the
breed’s history. Some tolerance for varia-
tion should certainly be given. Howev-
er, remember that the current standard
explicitly states under “Size, Proportion,
Substance” that “non-conformity with
these limits is a fault.” Be careful not to
consciously select for a fault just because
it looks “impressive.” From 1935 through
today, the Stafford is still described as
active and agile dog.
In the 1949 revision, a “Characteris-
tics” section was added. Today it appears
verbatim in the AKC standard under
“Temperament” which is still the only
standard to mention a breed’s affection
for children.
In 1935, there was no description for
movement in the standard. In 1949, the
parent club intended on adding move-
ment as a portion of the old 100-point
judging system, but the Kennel Club
changed its policies and would not allow
this scoring system to be published—no
description was added at that time. The
original AKC standard for the breed
was taken directly from the 1949 UK
standard, and thus also had no mention
of gait. Essentially movement slipped
through the cracks for the first 50 years
of breed standard history. The first
description did not appear until 1987
(UK) and consequently 1989 (US) where
it remains as such, “Free, powerful and
agile with economy of effort. Legs mov-
ing parallel when viewed from front or
rear. Discernible drive from hind legs.”
The language for Head, Body, Fore-
quarters and Hindquarters catagories
has also changed a bit over time with the
addition of greater details, but many of
the primary descriptors have remained
“Be careful not to consciously select for a fault
juSt BEcauSE it lookS imprESSivE.”
204 • ShowSight Magazine, April 2013